5
Management of Riparian Areas

The condition of the nation’s riparian areas represents the outcome of decades of local and basinwide land use, often with little understanding of how various practices might impact these valuable and productive systems. With an increasing body of scientific knowledge regarding riparian areas—their ecological processes and functions, their diversity at local and landscape levels, and their productivity and utility for a variety of human uses—the nation is now in position to protect, improve, and restore many of its riparian systems. This chapter outlines approaches for improving the ecological functioning of riparian areas—an opportunity for landowners, irrigation districts, watershed councils, professional societies, government at local, state, and federal levels and their associated regulatory agencies, and the public at large. According to Verry et al. (2000), “The acid test of our understanding is not whether we can take ecosystems apart on paper…but whether we can put them together in practice and make them work.”

The restoration of riparian areas and their associated aquatic ecosystems has become a topic of intense scientific interest. For example, the experimental flood of the Colorado River in the southwestern United States in the spring of 1996 focused worldwide attention on alternative methods for managing and restoring river and riparian ecosystems (Collier et al., 1997). Reinstating flooding and overbank flows on a river where flow regulation has been in place for decades is now seen as a potential means for partially restoring fluvial geomorphology and riverine habitats for threatened and endangered species in this human-impacted landscape. Similarly, the initiation of restoration efforts on the channelized and flow-regulated Kissimmee River in south Florida is a major undertaking designed to restore 70 km of river channel and 11,000 ha of wetland over the next



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management 5 Management of Riparian Areas The condition of the nation’s riparian areas represents the outcome of decades of local and basinwide land use, often with little understanding of how various practices might impact these valuable and productive systems. With an increasing body of scientific knowledge regarding riparian areas—their ecological processes and functions, their diversity at local and landscape levels, and their productivity and utility for a variety of human uses—the nation is now in position to protect, improve, and restore many of its riparian systems. This chapter outlines approaches for improving the ecological functioning of riparian areas—an opportunity for landowners, irrigation districts, watershed councils, professional societies, government at local, state, and federal levels and their associated regulatory agencies, and the public at large. According to Verry et al. (2000), “The acid test of our understanding is not whether we can take ecosystems apart on paper…but whether we can put them together in practice and make them work.” The restoration of riparian areas and their associated aquatic ecosystems has become a topic of intense scientific interest. For example, the experimental flood of the Colorado River in the southwestern United States in the spring of 1996 focused worldwide attention on alternative methods for managing and restoring river and riparian ecosystems (Collier et al., 1997). Reinstating flooding and overbank flows on a river where flow regulation has been in place for decades is now seen as a potential means for partially restoring fluvial geomorphology and riverine habitats for threatened and endangered species in this human-impacted landscape. Similarly, the initiation of restoration efforts on the channelized and flow-regulated Kissimmee River in south Florida is a major undertaking designed to restore 70 km of river channel and 11,000 ha of wetland over the next

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management 15 years (Cummins and Dahm, 1995; Dahm et al., 1995; Toth et al., 1998). The goal of this long-term project is to reestablish 104 km2 of river-floodplain ecosystem and return a more normal hydrograph to the river. These ambitious and expensive projects represent historic initiatives in ecosystem restoration; however, they are a small part of the challenges that remain in restoring rivers and riparian areas throughout the United States. Because degradation of riparian areas varies in areal extent, severity, and proximity to streams and other waterbodies, attempts at restoring these areas will entail more than simply understanding the workings of a narrow strip of land along a stream, river, or other body of water. Upslope and upriver land uses must necessarily be considered. Understanding the watershed context is often essential in undertaking restoration efforts that are targeted at improving streamside areas (Kershner, 1997). Unfortunately, although watersheds as geographic areas are “optimal organizing units” for dealing with the management of water and related resources such as riparian areas (NRC, 1999), the natural boundaries of watersheds (and their riparian systems) rarely coincide with legal and political boundaries. City, county, state, and federal jurisdictions provide a mélange of authorities across the landscape. Thus, comprehensive watershed approaches to riparian restoration, by necessity, will need to involve numerous landowners, a cross section of political and institutional representations, and coalitions of special interest groups. GOALS OF MANAGEMENT Strategies and practices that reflect a spectrum of goals will likely be needed for maintaining and improving the ecological functions of existing riparian areas and for improving their sustainability and productivity for future generations. This section identifies several broad management approaches that have different objectives and expected outcomes. Protection Protection (also referred to as preservation or maintenance) of intact riparian areas is of great importance, both environmentally and economically. It is distinct from restoration, which addresses degraded systems. Intact riparian areas represent valuable reference sites for understanding the goals and the efficacy of various restoration approaches and other management efforts. In some cases they are important sources of genetic material for the reintroduction of native biota into areas in need of restoration. For these reasons and others, riparian areas in a natural state warrant a high level of protection (NRC, 1992, 1995; Kauffman et al., 1997). As a management strategy, riparian protection may entail more than simply preventing human-induced alterations. For example, actions such as prescribed

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management fire, management of exotic species invasions, and large herbivore management may be necessary to maintain natural characteristics and functions and to sustain them over time. Because degraded riparian areas are so prevalent in many portions of the nation, protecting any that remain relatively uninfluenced by human perturbations should be a high priority. Measures to protect intact areas are often relatively easy to implement, have a high likelihood of being successful, and are less expensive than the restoration of degraded systems (NRC, 1992; Cairns, 1993). Restoration Definitions of the verb restore commonly include to reestablish, to put back into existence or use, to bring back into the former or original state, to renew, to repair into nearly the original form, and to bring back into a healthy state. These definitions point to the reestablishment of former conditions, processes, and functions (i.e., making healthy again). Although seemingly simple in concept, the restoration of degraded riparian areas is often a scientific and social challenge. In some instances, the natural or pristine conditions of a particular riparian area may no longer exist or may not be known with certainty. In others, multiple causes of degradation may have occurred over long periods of time—hence, cause-and-effect relationships that define existing conditions may not be well known or easy to decipher at either local or landscape scales. Restoration may refer both to the process of repairing degraded riparian areas and to the desired end goal of such actions, although the term is sometimes used to refer only to the latter. Thus, for example, NRC (1992) defined restoration of aquatic ecosystems as representing the “re-establishment of pre-disturbance aquatic functions and related physical, chemical, and biological characteristics.” It further indicated that “restoration is different from habitat creation, reclamation, and rehabilitation—it is a holistic process not achieved through the isolated manipulation of individual elements.” This definition has the stated goal of regaining predisturbance characteristics, which this report categorizes specifically as ecological restoration. Thus, a working definition of ecological restoration for riparian areas, based upon the above as well as upon definitions within Jackson et al. (1995), Kauffman et al. (1997), and Williams et al. (1997) might be: The reestablishment of predisturbance riparian functions and related physical, chemical, and biological linkages between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems; it is the repairing of human alterations to the diversity and dynamics of indigenous ecosystems. A fundamental goal of riparian restoration is to facilitate self-sustaining occurrences of natural processes and linkages among the terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems. Ecological restoration of riparian areas results in the reestablishment of functional linkages between organisms and their environment, even though these

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management systems may be continually responding to the natural dynamics of various environmental conditions. Across the nation, there are many riparian areas where ecological restoration is possible. For example, riparian areas in forests and rangeland areas throughout the western United States represent likely candidates for ecological restoration if the adverse effects of historical or ongoing land uses can be significantly reduced, controlled, or eliminated. Success is more likely where fundamental disturbance regimes continue to occur relatively unhindered by human influence. Ecological restoration of riparian areas that border low-order streams or other small bodies of water is also possible where human impacts have involved relatively benign land uses. Tributary junctions of streams and rivers represent additional landscape locations where disturbance regimes often remain in a relatively natural state. In such situations, it may be possible to recover nearly the full array of riparian composition, structure, and functions that existed before significant human alterations or impacts occurred. Although ecological restoration may be an achievable and desired goal for some areas, it obviously cannot be attained everywhere. For example, permanent or irreversible changes in hydrologic disturbance regimes (e.g., via dams, transbasin diversions, irrigation projects, extensive landscape modification), natural processes (e.g., global climate change, accelerated erosion), channel and floodplain morphology (e.g., channel incision, rip-rap, levees), and other impacts (e.g., extirpation of species, biotic invasions) may preclude our ability to precisely or completely re-create the composition, structure, and functions that previously existed. Riparian areas adjacent to large rivers may represent a greater challenge than those associated with smaller streams and rivers because of the greater number of factors affecting flow regimes at these larger scales (Gore and Shields, 1998). Nevertheless, even in such situations, there are often numerous opportunities to effect significant ecological improvement of riparian areas and to restore, at least in part, many of the functions they formerly performed. Based on the above considerations and others, this report classifies as restoration those efforts that lead to the recovery of some of the previously existing riparian composition, structure, and functions. As shown in Figure 5-1, restoration represents a reversal in the decline of ecosystem health and movement of a degraded system toward its historical conditions and functions. Although the predisturbance composition, structure, and functions of the riparian area (i.e., ecological restoration) may not be the final outcome of a restoration effort, the primary intent of such efforts is nevertheless to shift a riparian area in that direction. This chapter considers many of the scientific and social challenges to be faced in restoring riparian areas that have been significantly altered or degraded by human activities. Distinguishing between natural disturbances and the effects of human-induced modifications to riparian areas is an important aspect of restoration. Understanding the values of society is equally important, as they will

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management FIGURE 5-1 Restoration is dependent on ecosystem structure and function. A primary goal of restoration is to redirect the trajectory of a degraded area, in relation to both its structure and function. Restoration refers broadly the moving towards the upper right corner. Ecological restoration is represented by the historic watershed condition. SOURCE: Reprinted, with permission, from Williams et al. (1997). © 1997 by American Fisheries Society. likely need to change and adapt over time if restoration efforts are to proceed. Because riparian areas represent an entire suite of organisms, physical features, processes, and functions, a species-only or single-process approach will likely fail to achieve a significant degree of restoration. For example, the reintroduction of an extirpated plant species into a degraded riparian area is likely to fail if the underlying causes of extirpation have not been addressed. Focusing on those human influences that affect multiple ecological processes is more likely to attain greater restoration of riparian habitat and species of interest. Alternatives to Protection and Ecological Restoration Across the United States, a large number of aquatic and riparian projects are implemented each year, many of them having “restoration” as one of their expressed goals. Although ecological restoration may be a nominally important objective of some projects, many others are simply altering aquatic and riparian

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management systems with little emphasis on understanding or attempting to benefit long-term ecological processes or functions (Goodwin et al., 1997); improvements in ecological functions are typically not specified nor necessarily expected. Terms such as creation, reclamation, rehabilitation, replacement, mitigation, enhancement, and naturalization have been coined to describe the wide variety of land management approaches (NRC, 1992, 1996). These approaches typically emphasize altering ecosystem components to serve a particular human purpose, but generally are not intended to restore the full suite of ecological functions that would normally be associated with a particular riparian area (Kauffman et al., 1997). Although these terms have different meanings to various disciplines (legal, political, and scientific), the appropriate characterization of riparian management options and goals is more than a matter of semantics. It is important to properly distinguish between a wide range of management approaches so that interested parties have realistic expectations regarding their potential outcomes. Creation Creation is the establishment of a new riparian system on a site where one did not previously exist; it is generally associated with the establishment of a “new” reach of stream. For example, the repositioning of a section of stream or river channel will inherently cause the “creation” of a new riparian area that may or may not be ecologically similar to the section of channel lost by such a repositioning. Often the newly created channel will be less sinuous than the original one and less likely to be hydrologically connected to former floodplains. In other instances, channels may have been unintentionally developed or created as a result of long-term land-use practices. As discussed in Chapter 3, conversion of native forests and grasslands to agricultural crops throughout much of the Midwest was commonly accompanied by altering field drainage patterns (e.g., tiling and ditching), such that new channels eventually developed. An extended network of intermittent and ephemeral streams has become established in many agricultural areas where they did not previously exist; many of these streams could support riparian plant communities. Reclamation Reclamation has traditionally been defined as the process of adapting natural resources to serve utilitarian human purposes (NRC, 1992). Historically, it often involved the conversion of wetlands and riparian areas to agricultural, industrial, or urban uses. More recently, however, reclamation has been defined as a process resulting in a stable, self-sustaining ecosystem that may or may not include some exotic species. The structure and functions of reclaimed sites may be similar, although not identical, to those of the original land (Jackson et al., 1995).

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management Rehabilitation Rehabilitation implies rebuilding or making part of a riparian area useful again after natural or anthropogenic disturbances. For example, the mechanical excavation and reconfiguring of an eroding bank could represent rehabilitation. Although the resulting bank configuration might assist in retarding subsequent erosion, its configuration and other properties might be quite unlike that of a natural channel. Restoration of predisturbance processes and functions is neither required nor implied in the definition of rehabilitation; rehabilitation efforts typically do not focus on reproducing conditions characteristic of functionally intact riparian systems or on meeting regional ecological goals. Mitigation Mitigation is an attempt to alleviate some or all of the detrimental effects or environmental damage that arise from human actions. Mitigation is commonly used with regard to wetlands—e.g., the creation of a new wetland is often proposed as mitigation for natural wetlands that are to be impacted by dredging, filling, or other human alterations. However, constructed wetlands seldom display the full complement of structural and functional attributes of the native wetlands they replace (Quammen, 1986; Kusler and Kentula, 1990; NRC, 2001). Mitigation with regard to riparian areas focuses on minimizing potential detrimental impacts from a particular human action. For example, where levees may be needed along a river to protect human developments, mitigation might require the levees to be set back some distance from the channel edge to retain some riparian functions of the streamside vegetation and to maintain hydrologic connectivity of the near-channel floodplains and side channels. Where rip-rap is to be employed along a streambank, mitigation might require that measures be taken to ensure that riparian plants can become established and survive along the structure. In forested systems, large wood could be placed in channels in an attempt to mitigate the effects of prior harvesting practices that removed all trees along streams. Replacement Replacement represents the substitution of a native species or ecosystem feature with an alternative species (e.g., exotic species) or foreign object. An example would be the replacement of native conifers or deciduous trees with non-native species. Sometimes the replacement can be structural; for example, rip-rap may be used where floodplain or meadow streambanks have begun to erode because land uses have removed streamside vegetation or reduced the ability of the remaining vegetation to retard fluvial erosion. Replacement ap-

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management proaches are generally narrow in scope and seldom successful in promoting a wide range of ecological goals. Engineered approaches that reconstruct or greatly modify a particular stream and its riparian system to meet specific human ideas regarding what they should look like or how they should function are also considered replacement. Such approaches are often employed in urban areas where significant alterations to a stream and riparian area have occurred and where the hydrologic regime has been significantly altered (e.g., where increased amounts of impervious surface contribute more surface runoff and higher pollutant loads to a stream). Although these designed systems may provide many benefits (e.g., stabilized channel morphology, permanent streamside vegetation), they seldom have the features of more natural streams and thus do not provide the full range of functions associated with natural systems. Enhancement Enhancement represents an attempt to accentuate or improve a specific component of riparian areas. Thus, enhancements may come at the expense of other components and may create conditions that are uncharacteristic of a natural riparian system. A widespread example is the employment of structures of various types and sizes in channels and on streambanks (e.g., log weirs, gabions, large rocks) to enhance fisheries habitat (e.g., Wesche, 1985; Hunter, 1991; Seehorn, 1992). These structures can alter streambank structure, sediment transport dynamics, and hydrologic connectivity with riparian vegetation, often resulting in disruption of riparian–stream linkages. Similarly, when spoils, rocks, or boulders are removed from streams and added to streambanks and floodplains to enhance local channel stability, conditions may no longer be suitable for the natural establishment of riparian vegetation or for adjustments in channel morphology in response to streamflow and sediment transport. In-channel enhancement projects are unlikely to provide long-term or sustainable improvements for riparian/aquatic systems (Platts and Rinne, 1985; Elmore and Beschta, 1989; Beschta et al., 1994). Naturalization Naturalization, an alternative to ecological restoration, attempts to accommodate watershed-scale human influences in environmental designs of channels by establishing stable, self-sustaining geomorphologic systems with abundant and diverse ecological communities that are fundamentally different from those that existed before. The concept of naturalization was developed for specific application to agricultural streams that have been significantly modified, often by deepening and straightening previously existing channels (Rhoads and Herricks, 1996). Where headwater channel gradients are low, as in the Midwest, such channelized and modified streams have developed relatively stable configura-

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management tions over many decades; the goal of naturalization would be to maintain that new stable configuration. Naturalization assumes that the pristine stream network may not be the best restoration objective for stream management because (1) adequate information on the pristine state of streams is not available, (2) environmental conditions in most watersheds are far removed from the pristine state, and (3) restoration at the watershed scale is economically impractical. Because most streams in agricultural settings are not regulated by dams or lined with concrete, they retain some of their capability to morphologically adjust to changing flow and sediment regimes, implying there is some potential for these areas to support other riparian functions such as habitat provision. Management that might be used to achieve naturalization includes not only vegetated riparian buffers (discussed later), but also off-channel wetlands, side-slope reduction of streambanks, increased stream sinuosity, and other practices that provide improved ecological and water-quality benefits (Petersen et al., 1992). The alternative approaches described above differ from protection and ecological restoration in their ultimate goals and consequently in the amount of ecological functioning that a degraded riparian area might eventually attain. While it is not the objective of this report to advocate ecological restoration as a goal for all degraded riparian areas, it is important to understand the trade-offs between restoring an area to full functioning vs. partial functioning. Much more important than the setting of a challenging goal (e.g., ecological restoration) is continual progress toward a more functional system. When conceptualized as a series of activities that improve both ecosystem structure and function, restoration can be monitored over time and at specific milestones. Box 5-1 illustrates the restoration of Bear Creek, Oregon—i.e., movement of this riparian area toward improved structure and functioning. Passive Versus Active Approaches to Restoration Once the necessary background information has been obtained for understanding the status, trends, and factors influencing a particular riparian area, perhaps the most critical step in undertaking restoration is to curtail those activities and land uses that are either causing degradation or preventing recovery. Such an approach is referred to as passive restoration (Kauffman et al., 1997). Removing human disturbances in degraded systems allows natural process to be the primary agents of recovery. Many riparian areas are capable of recovery following a reduction in or curtailment of human perturbations because the biota of these systems has evolved to reproduce and survive in an environment of frequent natural disturbances. In the absence of other types of management, natural disturbance regimes and ecosystem responses will dictate the speed of recovery for areas undergoing passive restoration (NRC, 1996).

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management BOX 5-1 Bear Creek, Oregon: A Restoration Case Study Bear Creek provides a unique opportunity to observe the evolution of a riparian area over 21 years of changing management. It also demonstrates the resiliency of functioning riparian areas to management alternatives and high-flow events. Bear Creek is approximately 1,000 m (3500 ft) in elevation and located in the high desert of central Oregon. Although annual precipitation averages only 300 mm (12 in), the year-to-year variation in precipitation is quite high. Peak runoff from snowmelt typically occurs in mid to late February, and summer thunderstorms are common. Livestock have grazed the Bear Creek area since the late 1800s; the permitted use in 1977 was 75 animal unit months (AUMs) from April until September. Surveys during 1977 revealed that the Bear Creek riparian area totaled 0.95 ha/km (3.8 ac/mile) of stream (representing an average riparian width of less than 5 m (16 ft) on each side of the stream) and was producing approximately 225 kg/ha (200 lbs/ac) of forage. That meant that if livestock consumed all the available forage and used 365 kg/AUM (800 lbs/AUM), 1.6 km (1 mile) of stream was required to support one cow for one month. As shown in Plate 5-1, by 1977 streambanks were actively eroding, the channel was deeply incised, and riparian vegetation was sparse. Flows were frequently intermittent, and runoff events contained high sediment loads. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) then changed the grazing rotation in the area such that in 1979 and 1980, the area was grazed for one week in September. From 1981 to 1984, none of the area was grazed. As shown in Plate 5-2, by May 1983, banks were stabilizing and the channel was narrowing and deepening. Sediment trapped by vegetation can be seen on the banks among newly emerging plants. Juniper trees in the floodplain seen in Plate 5-1 were cut down to see if this practice would affect willow reestablishment. (To date, willow reestablishment has been unsuccessful.) The large juniper indicated by the arrow was left, and it can be seen in the remaining photos. By comparing Plates 5-1 and 5-2, it can be seen that over the six-year period of controlled grazing and livestock exclusion, riparian vegetation increased, the channel narrowed and deepened, and channel stability increased. Sediment, trapped by vegetation, can be seen on the banks in the reestablishing riparian area. These results were the result of natural recovery of the riparian area once livestock were excluded. Active restoration techniques, such as channel grading and planting, were not used. During 1985, the pasture was divided into three pasture units, and controlled grazing was permitted from mid-February to mid-April. Vegetation was then allowed to grow to protect the stream system during the critical summer thunderstorm period and to provide livestock forage the following year. From 1983 to 1986, the channel continued to deepen and narrow, and nearly 460 mm (1.5 ft) of sediment was trapped on the floodplain because of increased riparian vegetation, which not only reduced channel scour but also reduced flow velocities and sediment transport capacity, as shown in Plate 5-3. Plate 5-4, taken in June 1987, shows the effects of a large summer thunderstorm and resulting flood event on the riparian area. Compared to 1986 (Plate 5-3), it appears that much of the riparian vegetation has been inundated with sediment. The main channel widened some, but it is still narrower than it was in 1977 (Plate 5-1), and the channel

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management and the stream banks appear stable. There are obvious sediment deposits on the streambanks. By August 1987 (Plate 5-5), the riparian vegetation was recovering rapidly and was stabilizing sediment trapped during the flood event, although some bare areas were still present. By October 1998, 16 months after the June 1987 flood event, the riparian area appears to have fully revegetated (Plate 5-6). The floodplain now appears stable and has trapped over 600 mm (2 ft) of sediment since 1976. By 1989, the increased productivity of the riparian area permitted grazing to increase to 354 AUMs, nearly five times the 1977 allotment of 75 AUMs. This reportedly reduced the livestock permittee’s winter feeding costs by over $10,000 a year. Plate 5-7, taken in August 1994, shows the riparian area during a drought. Because of reduced channel flow, sedges and rushes seeking water occupy almost the entire channel. The formerly intermittent stream has become perennial because of increased infiltration and moisture storage in the reestablished riparian area. By 1995, beavers had returned to the watershed, presumably attracted by the improved hydrologic regime and increasing riparian vegetation. This is another possible indication of improved riparian functioning, as beavers usually avoid streams in poor condition. The dam building activities of the beavers will further stabilize the stream and increase water storage within the stream system. Plate 5-8 shows a newly established beaver dam slightly downstream of previous photos. By 1996, the riparian area had increased in size to 3 ha/stream km (12 ac/stream mile), and forage production had increased to 370 kg/ha (2,000 lbs/acre)—approximately a 10-fold increase since 1977. Sediment deposition in the riparian area raised the streambed by 0.75 m (2.5 ft), and channel storage increased eightfold to approximately 9,400 m3/km (4,000,000 gal/mile) since 1977. Stream length (sinuosity) increased by 11 percent, and rainbow trout returned to the stream for the first time in decades. In February 1996, the stream experienced another major flood caused by the rapid melting of the winter snow pack. As shown in Plate 5-9, the flood inundated a large portion of the floodplain. When the water receded, however, little damage was revealed, as shown in Plates 5-10 and 5-11, taken two and eight months later in April and October 1996, respectively. The established riparian vegetation was able to resist damage from this flood, protect the stream channel from scour, reduce flow velocities, and trap an additional 13 cm (5 in) of sediment in the floodplain. The Bear Creek project demonstrated the potential of passive restoration in a riparian area long degraded by overgrazing. In this case, total exclusion of livestock from the riparian area occurred for several years, followed by controlled late winter–early spring grazing from February 15 to April 15 once most of the riparian vegetation was reestablished. Livestock were excluded from the riparian area at all other times of the year. According to the BLM project manager, the timing and duration of grazing appeared to be more important than the number of livestock in maintaining the health of riparian vegetation once it had been reestablished. In addition, the most important factor in riparian area restoration was commitment by the operator to observe the livestock exclusion and the subsequent controlled grazing. Photos and project description provided by Wayne Elmore.

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management Hauer, F. R., and R. D. Smith. 1998. The hydrogeomorphic approach to functional assessment of riparian wetlands: evaluating impacts and mitigation on river floodplains in the U.S. A. Freshwater Biology 40(3):517–530. Hawkins, C. P., R. H. Norris, J. N. Hogue, and J. W. Feminella. 2000. Development and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecological Applications 10:1456–1477. Hendrickson, D. A., and W. L. Minckley. 1984. Cienegas—vanishing climax communities of the American Southwest. Desert Plants 6:131–175. Hill, M. T., W. S. Platts, and R. L. Beschta. 1991. Ecological and geomorphological concepts for instream and out-of-channel flow requirements. Rivers 2:198–210. Hoctor, T. S., M. H. Carr, and P. D. Zwick. 2000. Identifying a linked reserve system using a regional landscape approach: the Florida ecological network. Conservation Biology 14:984–1000. Horner, R. R., and B. W. Mar. 1982. Guide for water quality impact assessment of highway operations and maintenance. Rep. WA-RD-39.14. Olympia, WA: Washington Dept. of Transportation. Howery, L. D., F. D. Provenza, R. E. Banner, and C. B. Scott. 1996. Differences in home range and habitat use among individuals in a cattle herd. Applied Animal Behavior Sci. 49:305–20. Huber, S. A., M. B. Judkins, L. J. Krysl, T. J. Svejcar, B. W. Hess and D. W. Holcombe. 1995. Cattle grazing a riparian mountain meadow: effects of low and moderate stocking density on nutrition, behavior, diet selection and plant growth response. J. Anim. Sci. 73:3752–3765. Hubert, W. A., R. P. Lanka, T. A. Wesche, and F. Stabler. 1985. Grazing management influences on two brook trout streams in Wyoming. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-120:290–294. Hughes, L. E. 1979. Rest-rotation grazing vs. season-long grazing on Naval Oil Shale Reserve Allotment in Colorado. Rangelands 1:55–56. Hunter, C. 1991. Better trout habitat, a guide to stream restoration and management. Washington, DC: Island Press. Hunter, M. L., Jr. 1996. Fundamentals of conservation biology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science. 482 pp. Ilhardt, B. L., E. S. Verry, and B. J. Palik. 2000. Defining riparian areas. In: Riparian management in forests of the Continental Eastern United States. E. S. Verry, J. W. Hornbeck, and C. A. Dolloff (eds.). Washington, DC: Lewis Publishers. Inamdar, S. P., J. M. Sheridan, R. G. Williams, D. D. Bosch, R. R. Lowrance, L. S. Altier and D. L. Thomas. 1999. Riparian ecosystem management model (REMM): I. Testing of the hydrologic component for a Coastal Plain riparian system. Trans. Am. Soc. Agr. Eng. 42:1679–1689. Inamdar, S. P. 1991. Riparian zone management model for optimized water quality, biomass and wildlife species diversity. Unpublished Independent Study Report, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. Iowa State University. 1997. Stewards of our streams: buffer strip design, establishment, and maintenance. Pub. 1626b. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Extension. Isenhart, T. M., R. C. Schultz, and J. P. Colletti. 1997. Watershed restoration and agricultural practices in the Midwest: Bear Creek of Iowa. Pp. 318–334 In: Watershed restoration: principles and practices. J. E. Williams, C. A. Wood, and M. P Dombeck (eds.). Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Jackson, L. L., N. Lopoukhine, and D. Hillyard. 1995. Ecological restoration: a definition and comments. Restoration Ecology 3:71–75. Janssen, R. 1994. Multiobjective decision support for environmental management. Dordrect, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 232 pp. Jones, J. B., and P. J. Mulholland. 2000. Streams and ground waters. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21–27. Karr, J. R., and D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environmental Management 5:55–68. Karr, J. 1996. Making meaning of all the science. Pp. 149–152 In: At the water’s edge: the science of riparian forestry. Conference Proceedings, January 1996. BU-6637-S. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Extension Service. Karr, J. R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications 1:66–84. Karr, J. R., and E. W. Chu. 1999. Restoring life in running waters: better biological monitoring. Washington, DC: Island Press. Kauffman, J. B, R. L. Beschta, N. Otting, and D. Lytjen. 1997. An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the western United States. Fisheries 22(5):12–24. Kauffman, J. B., W. C. Krueger, and M. Vavra. 1983. Effects of late season cattle grazing on riparian plant communities. Journal of Range Management 36:685–91. Keller, C. R., and K. P. Burnham. 1982. Riparian fencing, grazing, and trout habitat preference on Summit Creek, Idaho. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2:53–59. Kenney, D. S., S. T. McAllister, W. H. Caile, and J. S. Peckham. 2000. The new watershed source book: a directory and review of watershed initiatives in the western United States. Natural Resources Law Center. Kershner, J. L. 1997. Setting riparian/aquatic restoration within a watershed context. Restoration Ecology 5(4s):15–24. Kilgo, J. C., R. A. Sargent, B. R. Chapman, and K. V. Miller. 1998. Effect of stand width and adjacent habitat on breeding bird communities in bottom hardwoods. J. Wildl. Manage. 62:72–83 Knight, R. L., and S. A. Temple. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management. Pp. 327–333 In: Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller (eds.). Washington, DC: Island Press. 372 pp. Koehler, D. A., and A. E. Thomas. 2000. Managing for enhancement of riparian and wetland areas of the western United States: an annotated bibliography. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-54. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 369 pp. Kondolf, G. M., and M. G. Wolman. 1993. The sizes of salmonoid spawning gravels. Water Resources Research 29:2275–2285. Kovacic, D. A., M. A. David, L. E. Gentry, K. M. Starks, and R. A. Cooke. 2000. Effectiveness of constructed wetlands in reducing nitrogen and phosphorus export from agricultural tile drainage. Journal of Environmental Quality 29:1262–1274. Kovalchick, B. L. 1987. Riparian zone associations: Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR, RG-ECOLTP-297-87. 171 pp. Kusler, J. A., and M. E. Kentula, eds. 1990. Wetland creation and restoration; the status of the science. Washington, DC: Island Press. 594 pp. Kusler, J., and W. Niering. 1998. Wetland assessment: have we lost our way? National Wetlands Newsletter 20(1):9–14. Larson, J. S., and D. B. Mazzarese. 1994. Rapid assessment of wetlands: history and application to management. Pp. 625–636 In: Global wetlands: old world and new. W. J. Mitsch (ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V. Larson, R. A. 1995. Balancing wildlife viewing with wildlife impacts: a case study. Pp. 257–270 In: Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller (eds.). Washington, DC: Island Press. 372 pp. Law, D. J., C. B. Marlow, J. C. Mosley, S. Custer, P. Hook, and B. Leinard. 2000. Water table dynamics and soil texture of three riparian plant communities. Northwest Science 74(3):233–241.

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management Lee, D., T. A. Dillaha and J. H. Sherrard. 1999. Modeling phosphorous transport in grass buffer strips. J. Environ. Eng. ASCE 115(2):409–427. Lee, K. H., T. M. Isenhart, R. C. Schultz, and S. K. Mickelson. 2000. J. Environmental Quality 29:1200–1205. Lenat, D. R. 1993. A biotic index for the southeastern United States: derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water quality ratings. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12:279–290. Leon, S. C. 2000. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. http://ifw2es.fws.gov/swwf/ Leonard, S., G. Staidl, J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, W. Hagenbuck, and D. Prichard. 1992. Procedures for ecological site inventory – with special reference to riparian-wetland sites. Technical Reference 1737-7. Denver, CO: Bureau of Land Management, National Applied Resource Science Center. 135 pp. Leopold, L. B., and M. G. Wolman. 1957. River channel patterns: braided, meandering and straight. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 282-B, pp. 39-85. Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman, and J. P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial processes in geomorphology. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman and Company. 522 pp. Lieberman, G. A., and L. L. Hoody. 1998. Closing the achievement gap using the environment as an integrating context for learning. San Diego, CA: State Education and Environment Roundtable. Liebowitz, S. G., B. Abbruzzese, P. R. Adamus, L. E. Hughes, and J. T. Irish. 1992. A synoptic approach to cumulative impact assessment: a proposed methodology. Report EPA/600/R-92/ 167. Corvallis, OR: EPA Environmental Research Laboratory. Lieurance, F. S., H. M. Valett, C. S. Crawford, and M. C. Molles, Jr. 1994. Experimental flooding of a riparian forest: restoration of ecosystem functioning. Pp. 365–374 In: Proceedings of the second international conference on ground water ecology. J. A. Stanford and H. M. Valett (eds.). Herndon, VA: American Water Resources Association. Lisle, T. E. 1989. Sediment transport and resulting deposition in spawning gravels, north coastal California. Water Resources Research 25:1303–1319. Loeks, C. D. 1985. Thinking laterally: strategies for strengthening institutional capacity for integrated management of riparian resources. Pp. 13–20 In: Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. USDA/Forest Service Gen. Tech. Bull. RM-120. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. Lopez, R. D., and M. S. Fennessy. 2002. Testing the floristic quality assessment index as an indicator of wetland condition. Ecological Applications 12(2):487–497. Lowrance, R., L. S. Altier, R. G. Williams, S. P. Inamdar, D. D. Bosch, R. K. Hubbard, and D. L. Thomas. 2000. REMM: The riparian ecosystem management model. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 55:27–36. Lowrance, R. R. 1992. Groundwater nitrate and denitrification in a Coastal Plain riparian forest. J. Environ. Qual. 21:401–405. Lowrance, R. R., R. L. Todd and L. E. Asmussen. 1983. Waterborne nutrient budgets for the riparian zone on an agricultural watershed. Agr. Ecosystems and Environ. 10:371–384. Lowrance, R., R. Leonard, and J. Sheridian. 1985. Managing riparian ecosystems to control nonpoint pollution. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40:87–97. Lowrance, R., L. S. Altier, J. D. Newbold, R. R. Schnabel, P. M. Groffman, J. M. Denver, D. L. Correll, J. W. Gilliam, J. L. Robinson, R. B. Brinsfield, K. W. Staver, L. Lucas, and A. H. Todd. 1995. Water quality functions of riparian forest buffer systems in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Annapolis, MD: U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. 67 pp. Lynch, J. A., E. S. Corbett and K. Mussallem. 1985. Best management practices for controlling nonpoint source pollution on forested watersheds. J. Soil and Water Conservation 40:164–167. MacClintock, L., R. F. Whitcomb, and B. L. Whitcomb. 1977. Evidence for the value of corridors and minimization of isolation in preservation of biotic diversity. Am. Birds 31:6–16.

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management MacDonnell, L. J. 1996. Managing reclamation facilities for ecosystem benefits. University of Colorado Law Review 67(2):197–257. Mackintosh, G. ed. 1989. Preserving communities and corridors. Washington, DC: Defenders of Wildlife. 95 pp. Madison, C. E., R. L. Blevins, W. W. Frye, and B. J. Barfield. 1992. Tillage and grass filter strip effects upon sediment and chemical losses. Madison, WI: Agronomy Abstracts, ASA. p. 331. Magette, W. L., R. B. Brinsfield, R. E. Palmer, and J. D. Wood. 1989. Nutrient and sediment removal by vegetated filter strips. Transactions of the ASAE 32(2):663–667. Malanson, G. P. 1993. Riparian landscapes: Cambridge studies in ecology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Marlow, C. B., and T. M. Pogacnik. 1986. Cattle feeding and resting patterns in a foothills riparian zone. J. Range Mgmt. 39:212–217. Masters, L., S. Swanson, and W. Burkhardt. 1996. Riparian grazing management that worked: introduction and winter grazing. Rangelands 18:192–195. Mattson, J. A., J. E. Baumgras, C. R. Blinn, and M. A. Thompson. 2000. Harvesting options for riparian areas. Pp. 255–272 In: Riparian management in forests of the continental United States. E. S. Verry, J. W. Hornbeck, and D. A. Dolloff (eds.). New York: Lewis Publishers. 402 pp. Mayer, R. 1999. Estimated costs for livestock fencing. Iowa State University Extension Service. FM 1855. Internet source: www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/forages/rotational/fencing/fencing_costs.html. McDade, M. H., F. J. Swanson, W. A. McKee, J. F. Franklin, and J. Van Sickle. 1990. Source distances for coarse woody debris entering small streams in western Oregon and Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources 20:326–330. McInnis, M. L., and McIver, J. 2001. Influence of off-stream supplements on streambanks of riparian pastures. J. Range Manage. 54:648–652. Meehan, W. R, ed. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special Publication 19. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. 751 pp. Merritt, D. M., and D. J. Cooper. 2000. Riparian vegetation and channel change in response to river regulation: a comparative study of regulated and unregulated streams in the Green River Basin, USA. Regulated Rivers 16:543–564. Mickelson, S. K., J. L. Baker, K. Arora, and A. Misra. 1995. A summary report: the effectiveness of buffer strips in reducing herbicide losses. Proc. 50th Annual Mtg. Soil and Water Conservation Society. Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 2000. The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting. Ecological Economics 35:25–33. Molles, M. C., Jr., C. S. Crawford, and L. M. Ellis. 1995. The effects of an experimental flood on litter dynamics in the Middle Rio Grande riparian ecosystem. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 11:275–281. Molles, M. C., Jr., C. S. Crawford, L. M. Ellis, H. M. Valett, and C. N. Dahm. 1998. Managed flooding for riparian ecosystem restoration. BioScience 48:749–756. Montgomery, D. R., and J. M. Buffington. 1997. Channel classification, prediction of channel response, and assessment of channel condition. Prepared for the Washington State Timber/Fish/ Wildlife Committee. Report TFW-SH10-93-002. Mosley, J. C., P. S. Cook, A. J. Griffis, and J. O’Laughlin. 1997. Guidelines for managing cattle grazing in riparian areas to protect water quality: review of research and best management practices policy. Rept. No. 15. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group. Murphy, M. L. 1995. Forestry impacts on freshwater habitat of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska—requirements for protection and restoration. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Decision Analysis Series No. 7, 156 pp.

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management Naiman, R. J., and K. H. Rogers. 1997. Large animals and system-level characteristics in river corridors. BioScience 47:521–529. National Research Council (NRC). 1992. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 1995. Wetlands: characteristics and boundaries. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 1996. Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 1999. New strategies for America’s watersheds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 2000. Watershed management for potable water supply: assessing the New York City strategy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 2002. The Missouri River ecosystem: exploring the prospects for recovery. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Natural Resources Law Center. 1996. The watershed source book: watershed-based solutions to natural resource problems. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado. Nichols, D. J., T. C. Daniel, D. R. Edwards, P. A. Moore, and D. H. Pote. 1998. Use of grass filter strips to reduce 17-β-estradiol in runoff from fescue applied poultry litter. J. Soil and Water Conservation 53:74–77. Niemi, G. J., and J. M. Hanowski. 1984. Relationships of breeding birds to habitat characteristics in logged areas. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:438–443. Noss, R. F., H. B. Quigley, M. G. Hornocker, T. Merrill, and P. C. Paquet. 1996. Conservation biology and carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10:949–963. Noss, R. 1993. Wildlife corridors. Pp. 43–68 In: Ecology of greenways: design and function of linear conservation areas. D. S. Smith and P. C. Hellmund (eds.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Noss, R. F. 1983. A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. BioScience 33:700–706. Noss, R. F. 1997. The failure of universities to produce conservation biologists. Conservation Biology 11:1267–1269. Noss, R. F., and L. D. Harris. 1986. Nodes, networks, and MUMs: preserving diversity at all scales. Environmental Management 10:299–309. Noss, R. F., and A. Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy. Washington, DC: Island Press. Noss, R. F. 1991. Landscape connectivity: different functions at different scales. Pp. 27–39 In: Landscape linkages and biodiversity. W. E. Hudson (ed.). Washington, DC: Island Press. O’Neill, R. V., B. T. Milne, M. G. Turner, and R. H. Gardner. 1988. Resource utilization scales and landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 2:63–69. Ohmart, R. D., and B. W. Anderson. 1986. Riparian habitats. Pp. 169–99 In: Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. A. Y. Cooperider, R. J. Boyd, and H. R. Stuart (eds.). USDI-BLM. Olson, R. W., and C. L. Armour. 1979. Economic considerations for improved livestock management approaches for fish and wildlife in riparian/stream areas. Pp. 67–71 In: Proceedings of the forum: grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems. Nov. 3–4, 1978. O. B. Cope (ed.). Denver, CO: Trout Unlimited. Orr, D. 1990a. Is conservation education an oxymoron? Conservation Biology 4:119–121. Orr, D. 1990b. The virtue of conservation education. Conservation Biology 4:219–220. Orr, D. 2000. Ideasclerosis: part two. Conservation Biology 14:1571–1572. Palik, B. J., J. C. Zasada, and C. W. Hedman. 2000. Ecological principles for riparian silviculture. Pp. 233–254 In: Riparian management in forests of the continental Eastern United States. E. S. Verry, J. W. Hornbeck, and C. A. Dolloff (eds.). New York: Lewis Publishers. 402 pp. Peters, M. R., S. R. Abt, C. C. Watson, J. C. Fischenich, and J. M. Nestler. 1995. Assessment of restored riverine habitat using RCHARC. Water Resources Bulletin 31:745–752.

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management Petersen, R. C., L. B. M. Petersen, and J. Lacoursiere. 1992. A building block model for stream restoration. P. Boon, G. Petts, and P. Calow (eds.). The conservation and management of rivers. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Phillips, R. L., M. J. Trlica, W. C. Leininger, and W. P. Clary. 1999. Cattle use affects forage quality in a montane riparian ecosystem. J. Range Mgmt. 52:283–289. Planning and Conservation League (PCL) Foundation. 1999. The benefits of watershed management: water quality and supply. June 23, 1999. Platts, W. S. 1990. Managing fisheries and wildlife on rangelands grazed by livestock: a guidance and reference document for biologists. Nevada Dept. of Wildlife Rept. 114 pp. Platts, W. S., and J. N. Rinne. 1985. Riparian and stream enhancement management and research in the Rocky Mountains. North American Journal of Fishery Management 5:115–125. Platts, W. S., and F. J. Wagstaff. 1984. Fencing to control livestock grazing on riparian habitats along streams: is it a viable alternative? North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:266–272. Platts, W. S., and R. F. Raleigh. 1984. Impacts of Grazing on Wetlands and Riparian Habitat. Pp. 1105–17 In: Developing strategies for rangeland management. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Platts, W. S., and R. L. Nelson. 1985a. Will the riparian pasture build good streams? Rangelands 7:7–10. Platts, W. S., and R. L. Nelson. 1985b. Impacts of rest-rotation grazing on stream banks in forested watersheds in Idaho. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:547–556. Platts, W. S., and R. L. Nelson. 1985c. Streamside and upland vegetation use by cattle. Rangelands 7:5–7. Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47(11):769–784. Premo, D., and E. Rogers. 1998. Promoting healthy waterfront property—a pilot program hits the ground running. Lakeline 18:16–17, 38–39. Prichard, D., H. Barrett, J. Cagney, R. Clark, J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, P. L. Hansen, B. Mitchell, and D. Tippy. 1993. Riparian area management: process for assessing proper functioning condition. Technical Reference 1737-9. Denver, CO: Bureau of Land Management. Prichard, D., J. Anderson, C. Correll, J. Fogg, K. Gebhardt, R. Krapf, S. Leonard, B. Mitchell, and J. Staats. 1998. A user guide to assessing proper functioning condition and supporting science for lotic areas. Technical Reference 1737-15. Denver, CO: Bureau of Land Management, National Applied Resource Science Center. 126 pp. Quammen, M. L. 1986. Measuring the success of wetlands mitigation. National Wetlands Newsletter 8:6–8. Rheinhardt, R. R., M. C. Rheinhardt, M. M. Brinson, and K. E. Faser, Jr. 1999. Application of reference data for assessing and restoring headwater ecosystems. Ecological Restoration 7(3):241–251. Rhoads, B. L., and E. E. Herricks. 1996. Naturalization of headwater streams in Illinois: challenges and possibilities. In: River channel restoration: guiding principles for sustainable projects. A. Brookes and F. D. Shields (eds.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Richter, B. D., and H. E. Richter. 2000. Prescribing flood regimes to sustain riparian ecosystems along meandering rivers. Conservation Biology 14:1467–1478. Rickard, W. H., and C. E. Cushing. 1982. Recovery of streamside woody vegetation after exclusion of livestock grazing. Journal of Range Management 35:360–361. Rinne, J. N. 1988. Grazing effects on stream habitat and fishes: research design considerations. N. Amer. J. Fisheries Manage. 8:240–247. Rinne, J. N. 1999. Fish and grazing relationships: the facts and some pleas. Fisheries 24(8):12–21. Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest birds of the middle Atlantic states. Wildl. Monogr. 103.

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management Robinson, S. K. 1992. Population dynamics of breeding neotropical migrants in Illinois. Pp 408–418 In: Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. J. M. Hagan III, and D. W. Johnston (eds.). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Rood, S. B., and J. M. Mahoney. 1990. Collapse of riparian poplar forests downstream from dams in western prairies: probable causes and prospects for mitigation. Environmental Management 14:451–464. Rood, S. B., and J. M. Mahoney. 2000. Revised instream flow regulation enables cottonwood recruitment along the St. Mary River, Alberta, Canada. Rivers 7:109–125. Rood, S. B., K. Taboulchanas, C. E. Bradley, and A. R. Kalischuk. 1999. Influence of flow regulation on channel dynamics and riparian cottonwoods along the Bow River, Alberta. Rivers 7:33–48. Rood, S., and C. R. Gourley. 1996. Instream flows and the restoration of riparian cottonwoods along the Lower Truckee River, Nevada. Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, NV. Rosgen, D. 1995. Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO. Roth, N. E., J. D. Allan, and D. E. Erickson. 1996. Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecology 11:141–156. Salo, E. O., and T. W. Cundy, eds. 1987. Streamside management: forestry and fisheries interactions. Contribution No. 57. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources. 471 pp. Schellinger, G. R., and J. C. Clausen. 1992. Vegetative filter treatment of dairy barnyard runoff in cold regions. J. Environ. Qual. 21:40–45. Schmidt, J. C., E. D. Andrews, D. L. Wegner, D. T. Patten, G. R. Marzolf, and T. O. Moody. 1999. Origins of the 1996 controlled flood in Grand Canyon. Pp. 23–36 In: The controlled flood in the Grand Canyon. American Geophysical Union, Monograph 110. R. H. Webb, J. C. Schmidt, G. R. Marzolf, and R. A. Valdez (eds.). Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union. Schroeder, R. L., L. J. O’Neil, and T. M. Pullen, Jr. 1992. Wildlife community habitat evaluation: a model for bottomland hardwood forests in the southeastern United States. (draft) Biological Report 92. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Schueler, T. 1996. The architecture of urban stream buffers. Watershed Protection Techniques 1(4):155–165. Schultz, R. C., J. P. Colletti, T. M. Isenhart, W. W. Simpkins, C. W. Mize, and M. L. Thompson. 1995. Design and placement of a multi-species riparian buffer strip system. Agroforestry Systems 29:201–226. Schultz, R. C., J. P. Colletti, T. M. Isenhart, C. O. Marquez, W. W. Simpkins, C. J. Ball, and O. L. Schultz. 2000. Riparian forest buffer practices. Pp. 189–281 In: North American agroforesty: an integrated science and practice. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy. Schulz, T. T., and W. C. Leininger. 1990. Differences in riparian vegetation structure between grazed areas and exclosures. Journal of Range Management 43:295–299. Schulz, T. T., and W. C. Leininger. 1991. Nongame wildlife communities in grazed and ungrazed montane riparian sites. Great Basin Naturalist 51:286–292. Schwer, C. B., and J. C. Clausen. 1989. Vegetative filter treatment of dairy milkhouse wastewater. J. Environmental Quality 18:446–451. Scott, M. L., J. M. Friedman, and G. T. Auble. 1996. Fluvial process and the establishment of bottomland trees. Geomorphology 14:327–339. Scurlock, M., and J. Curtis. 2000. Maximizing the effectiveness of watershed councils: policy recommendations from Pacific River Council and Trout Unlimited, downloadable at http://www.pacriver.org/alerts/watershed.html Seehorn, M. E. 1992. Stream habitat improvement handbook. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region.

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management Shafroth, P. B., G. T. Auble, J. Stromberg, and D. T. Patten. 1998. Establishment of woody riparian vegetation in relation to annual patterns of streamflow, Bill Williams River, Arizona. Wetlands 18(40):577–590. Shafroth, P. B., J. C. Stromberg, and D. T. Patten. 2000. Wood riparian vegetation response to different alluvial water table regimes. Western North American Naturalist 60(1):66–76. Sheffield, R. E., S. Mostaghimi, D. H. Vaughan, E. R. Collins, Jr. and V. G. Allen. 1997. Off-stream water sources for grazing cattle as a stream bank stabilization and water quality BMP. Transactions of the ASAE 40:595–604. Shisler, J. K., R. A. Jordan, and R. N. Wargo. 1987. Coastal wetland buffer delineation. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Short, H. L. 1985. Management goals and habitat structure. Pp. 257–262 In: Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. USDA/Forest Service Gen. Tech. Bull. RM-120. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. Simberloff, D., and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conservation Biology 1:63–71. Simberloff, D., J. Farr, J. Cox, D. W. Mehlman. 1992. Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investments? Conservation Biology 6:493–504. Simberloff, D. S., and E. O. Wilson. 1969. Experimental zoogeography of islands: the colonization of empty islands. Ecology 50:278–296. Skovlin, J. M. 1984. Impacts of grazing on wetlands and riparian habitat: a review of our knowledge. Pp. 1001–1103 In: Developing strategies for rangeland management. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Smith, D. J. 1999. Identification and prioritization of ecological interface zones on state highways in Florida. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation, FL-ER-73-99. Evink, G. L., P. Garrett, and D. Zeigler (eds.). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Transportation. 330 pp. Smith, D. S. 1993. Greenway case studies. Pp. 161–214 In: Ecology of greenways: design and function of linear conservation areas. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Smith, D. S., and P. C. Hellmund, eds. 1993. Ecology of greenways: design and function of linear conservation areas. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Smith, R. D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M. M. Brinson. 1995. An approach for assessing wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands and functional indices. Technical Report TR-WRP-DE-9. Vicksburg, MI: Waterways Experiment Station, Army Corps of Engineers. Soil and Water Conservation Society (SWCS). 2001. Realizing the promise of conservation buffer technology. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society. 32 pp. Soulæ, M., and R. Noss. 1998. Rewilding and biodiversity: complementary goals for continental conservation. Wild Earth, Fall 1998:1–11. Spackman, S. C., and J. W. Hughes. 1995. Assessment of minimum stream corridor width for biological conservation: species richness and distribution along mid-order streams in Vermont, USA. Biological Conservation 71:325–332. Spence, B. C., G. A. Lomnicky, R. M. Hughes, and R. P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to salmonid conservation. Management Technology TR-4501-96-6057, Corvallis, OR, 356 pp. Stanford, J. A., and J. V. Ward. 1993. An ecosystem perspective of alluvial rivers: connectivity and the hyporheic corridor. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12:48–60. Stanford, J. A., J. V. Ward, W. J. Liss, C. A Frissell, R. N. Williams, J. A. Lichatowich, and C. C. Coutant. 1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. Regulated Rivers 12(4–5) 391–413. Stauffer, D. F., and L. B. Best. 1980. Habitat selection by birds of riparian communities: evaluating effects of habitat alterations. J. Wildl. Manage. 44:1–15.

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management Swan, B. 1979. Riparian habitat: the cattlemen’s viewpoint. Pp. 4–6 In: Proceedings of the forum: grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems. Nov. 3–4, 1978. O. B. Cope (ed.). Denver, CO: Trout Unlimited. Syndi, J. F., S. R. Abt, C. D. Bonham, C. C Watson, and J. C. Fischenich. 1998. Evaluation of flow-resistance equations for vegetated channels and floodplains. Technical Report EL-98-2. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. 34 pp. Thompson, K. 1961. Riparian forests of the Sacramento River Valley, California. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 51:294–315. Topping, D. J., D. M. Rubin, and L. E. Vierra. 2000. Colorado river sediment transport Part 1. Natural sediment supply limitation and the influence of Glen Canyon Dam. Water Resources Research 36:515–542. Toth, L. A., S. L. Melvin, D. A. Arrington, and J. Chamberlain. 1998. Hydrologic manipulations of the channelized Kissimmee River: implications for restoration. BioScience 48:757–764. Trails and Wildlife Task Force, Colorado State Parks, and Hellmund Associates. 1998. Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind. Denver, CO. (www.dnr.state.co.us/parks) Trine, C. L. 1998. Wood thrush population sinks and implications for the scale of regional conservation strategies. Conservation Biology 12:576–585. Turner, M. G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20:171–197. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 1998. Alamo Dam & Lake Feasibility Report and EIS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1980. Ecological Services Manual (101-104 ESM). Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Ecological Services. USDA-NRCS. 1994. NRCS Conservation Practice Standard—Herbaceous Wind Barrier Code 422A. Washington, DC: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 4 pp. USDA-NRCS. 1998. Stream Visual Assessment Protocol. Technical Note 99-1. National Water and Climate Center. Washington, DC: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Found at http://www.ncg.nrcs.usda.gov/pdf/svapfnl.pdf USDA-NRCS. 1999a. NRCS Conservation Practice Standard—Filter Strip Code 393. Washington, DC: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 4 pp. USDA-NRCS. 1999b. NRCS Conservation Practice Standard—Field Border Code 386. Washington, DC: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 3 pp. USDA-NRCS. 1999c. NRCS Conservation Practice Standard—Contour Buffer Strips Code 332. Washington, DC: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 4 pp. USDA NRCS. 2000a. Conservation buffers to reduce pesticide losses. Washington, DC: USDA National Resources Conservation Service. 21 pp. USDA-NRCS. 2000b. Filter Strips Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program CREP-CP21. Washington, DC: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 4 pp. USDA-NRCS. 2000c. NRCS Conservation Practice Standard—Riparian Forest Buffer Code 391. Washington, DC: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 3 pp. USDA-NRCS. 2000d. NRCS Conservation Practice Standard—Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment Code 380. Washington, DC: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 4 pp. USDA-NRCS. 2000e. NRCS Conservation Practice Standard—Grassed Waterway Code 412. Washington, DC: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2 pp. USDA-NRCS. 2001. NRCS Conservation Practice Standard—Vegetative Barrier Code 601. Washington, DC: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 4 pp. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS). 1994. Rangeland reform ‘94: draft environmental impact statement executive summary. Washington, DC: US DOI and USDA. Verry, E. S., J. S. Hornbeck, and D. A. Dolloff. 2000. Riparian management in forests of the eastern United States. New York: Lewis Publishers. 402 pp.

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management Voogd, H. 1983. Multicriteria evaluation for urban and regional planning. London: Pion Limited. 367 pp. Walker, R., and L. Craighead. 1997. Analyzing wildlife movement corridors in Montana using GIS. 1997 ESRI International Users Conference, July 8-11, 1997. (www.esri.com) Warne, A. G., L. A. Toth and W. A. White. 2000. Drainage-basin-scale geomorphic analysis to determine reference conditions for ecologic restoration—Kissimmee River, Florida. Geologic Society of America Bulletin 112(6):884–899. Wells, D., B. W. Anderson, and R. D. Ohmart. 1979. Comparative avian use of southwestern citrus orchards and riparian communities. Journal of the Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 14:53–58. Welsh, D. 1991. Riparian forest buffers—function and design for protection and enhancement of water resources. USDA-FS Pub. No. NA-PR-07-91. Radnor, PA: USDA-FS. Wesche, T. A. 1985. Stream channel modifications and reclamation structures to enhance fish habitat. Pp. 103–163 In: The restoration of rivers and streams: theories and experience. J. A. Gore (ed.). Stoneham, MA: Butterworth Publishers. 279 pp. Whigham, D. F., L. C. Lee, M. M. Brinson, R. D. Rheinhardt, M. C. Rains, J. A. Mason, H. Kahn, M. B. Ruhlman, and W. L. Nutter. 1999. Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) assessment—a test of user consistency. Wetlands 19:560–569. Whipple, W. 1993. Buffer zones around water-supply reservoirs. J. Water Res. Plann. Manage. 119(4):495–499. Whitaker, G., R. Misso, M. Schamberger, C. Cordes, and G. Hickman. 1985. HEP Review. Unpublished manuscript dated October 7, 1985. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Whiting, P. J., and J. B. Bradley. 1993. A process-based classification system for headwater streams. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 18:603–612. Whittaker, D., B. Shelby, W. Jackson, and R. Beschta. 1993. Instream flows for recreation: a handbook on concepts and research methods. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Water Resources Division. 103 pp. Wigington, P. J., and R. L. Beschta, eds. 2000. International conference on riparian ecology and management in multi-use watersheds. Middleburg, VA: American Water Resources Association. 616 pp. Wigley, T. B. 1996. Wildlife in streamside management zones: what do we really know? Pp. 85–90 In: At the water’s edge: the science of riparian forestry. Conference Proceedings, January 1996. BU-6637-S. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Extension Service. Wilhelm, G. S., and D. Ladd. 1988. Natural area assessment in the Chicago region. Pp. 361–375 In: Transactions of the 53rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, March 18–23, 1988 in Louisville, Kentucky. Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute. Wilkinson, T. 2001. Open grazing vs. barbed wire in New West. Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 22. Williams, J. E., C. A. Wood, and M. P. Dombeck (eds.). 1997. Watershed restoration: principles and practices. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. 561 pp. Winter, T. C. 1992. A physiographic and climatic framework for hydrologic studies of wetlands. Pp. 127–148 In: Aquatic ecosystems in semi-arid regions: implications for resource management. R. D. Robarts and M. L. Bothwell (eds.). N.H.R.I. symposium Series 7. Saskatoon, Sasketchewan: Environment Canada. Winter, T. C., and M.-K. Woo. 1990. Hydrology of lakes and wetlands. Pp. 159–187 In: The geology of North America. Vol. 0-1. Surface water hydrology. M. G. Wolman and H. C. Riggs (eds.). Boulder, CO: The Geologic Society of America. Wissmar, R. C., and R. R. Beschta. 1998. Restoration and management of riparian ecosystems: a catchment perspective. Freshwater Biology 40(3):571–585. Woessner, W. W. 2000. Stream and fluvial plain ground water interactions: rescaling hydrogeologic thought. Ground Water 38:423–429.

OCR for page 299
Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management Wuerthner, G. 1990. Grazing the western range: what costs, what benefits? Western Wildlands: 27–29. Xue, Y., M. B. David, L. E. Gentry, and D. A. Kovacic. 1998. Kinetics and modeling of dissolved phosphorus export from a tile-drained agricultural watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality 27:917–922. Young, R. A., T. Huntrods, and W. Anderson. 1980. Effectiveness of vegetative buffer strips in controlling pollution from feedlot runoff. J. Environ. Qual. 9:483–487.